Posted on 01/07/2025 10:35:43 AM PST by daniel1212
deadly serious.
the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ is much harder than the hardest diamond.
‘ deadly serious.’
Ooh.
‘ the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ is much harder than the hardest diamond.’
Apparently reason and logic are also hard for you as well, harder than Lonsdaleite.
as an engineer, i made my living on ‘reason’ and ‘logic.’
but ‘let him who has ears hear and eyes see.’
the evidence for faith is clear, convincing and undeniable, as some of the quotes above demonstrate to the individuals who made them.
‘ as an engineer, i made my living on ‘reason’ and ‘logic.’’
Then you should be embarrassed.
‘ but ‘let him who has ears hear and eyes see.’’
Because quoting a religious text to support the validity of said religion is in no way logical.
‘ the evidence for faith is clear, convincing and undeniable,’
And it continues.
According to a certain infamous judge, to teach that in schools would violate the first amendment, by which reasoning, official expression of dependence upon, and gratitude to any Supreme being is forbidden, thereby effectively conveying that atheism is the official faith of the government.
‘official expression of dependence upon, and gratitude to any Supreme being is forbidden, thereby effectively conveying that atheism is the official faith of the government.‘
Atheism isn’t a faith.
Belief in a supreme being is, and takes on many different forms and interpretations.
‘Then you should be embarrassed.’
i thank you sir or madam for once again proving out the Word of God to me:
Co 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
but i keep urging you onwards in your search FRiend, for math and physics are very good ways to ‘touch the face of God.’
with that have the last word if you want. moving on.
Rather, that is what occurs on today's college campuses, while in reality, God created life to suit the environment that He intended it for, with adaptations.
‘ i thank you sir or madam for once again proving out the Word of God to me:’
👍 and lol.
Awesome! Thanks.
I love John Lennox! What a treasure.
I think we have been here before, but atheism indeed a position of faith in that that in order to justify denial of Special Creation then you must have an alternative answer for the Universe, a Cause for the Effect. Which they cannot "prove" nor have I "proved" my position, but both sides offer evidence they believe supports their hypothesis which for both side is stated a warranted fact.
Which again, means that to believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for complex life with its profound intricate complexity and extensive diversity, can be all a result of purely natural processes requires much faith. More so i submit, than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a being of supreme power and intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter, and laws regarding the same.
And try not to rely on your previous recourse of "Where is it claimed that the universe if finely tuned for life" and as if the Universe is not related to life on earth.
Atheism isn’t a religious faith any more than not playing basketball is a sport.
False analogy. I will just copy and paste a AI (https://www.perplexity.ai/) reply, which also saves me typing in responding to troll as yourself:
Mischaracterization of atheism: Atheism is not merely the absence of belief, but often involves active rejection of theistic claims based on evidence and reasoning 4 9
. Unlike "not playing basketball," which is passive, many atheists engage in critical thinking and analysis of religious claims.In conclusion, while atheism may not be a "religious faith" in the traditional sense, it is a more complex and engaged position than the analogy suggests. The comparison to "not playing basketball" oversimplifies the nature of atheism and fails to capture its intellectual and philosophical dimensions.Differing levels of engagement: While not playing basketball requires no effort or thought, atheism often involves consideration of philosophical and scientific arguments 4
. Many atheists actively study and debate these topics, making it more akin to playing a different sport rather than not playing at all. Implications and worldview: Atheism, unlike not playing basketball, has significant implications for one's worldview and understanding of reality 5
. It influences moral, ethical, and existential perspectives, which "not playing basketball" does not.
Community and identity: Many atheists form communities, engage in discussions, and consider their atheism an important part of their identity 8 . This level of involvement is not comparable to simply not participating in a sport.
Intellectual position: Atheism is an intellectual stance on the question of God's existence, requiring consideration of evidence and arguments 3 . Not playing basketball does not involve any intellectual position on the nature of sports or reality.
‘ I will just copy and paste a AI (https://www.perplexity.ai/) reply, which also saves me typing in responding to troll as yourself:’
Lmao
That is indeed a false analogy.
Atheism is an active belief system, unlike agnosticism.
Agnosticism is understandable, but atheism is unintelligible because it is a belief system based on a universal negative (God does not exist). It is impossible to prove such a profound negative.
Here's what ChatGPT had to say about this:
Atheism, as an active belief system asserting that God does not exist, faces significant philosophical and epistemological challenges. Unlike agnosticism, which reflects uncertainty, atheism must grapple with the difficulty of proving a negative—a virtually impossible task requiring exhaustive knowledge of all reality. Atheists often attempt to address this by arguing probabilistically, citing the absence of empirical evidence for God and naturalistic explanations for phenomena.However, the old lawyer’s axiom, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” highlights that the lack of evidence for God may merely reflect the limitations of human perception and empirical methods, particularly if God exists as a transcendent being beyond material detection.
Theists counter that the absence of evidence does not invalidate their claims, especially when supported by philosophical arguments, historical claims, and personal experiences. They also argue that certain phenomena, such as the fine-tuning of the universe or the existence of objective morality, are better explained by a divine creator than by atheistic alternatives.
In comparing probabilities, theism, as articulated in traditions like Christianity and Judaism, offers a comprehensive explanatory framework for the universe, morality, and human purpose, while atheism struggles to provide equivalent depth. Ultimately, atheism’s reliance on negative assertions and limited explanatory power underscores its challenges, making theistic worldviews more compelling and philosophically grounded.
Does your non belief in Zeus, or any other god you reject, make you part of a religious faith by itself?
No.
You’re an atheist too, atheists merely reject one more god than you do and for the same reasons. No proof.
Thank you for the question in response to my questions. Whilst I was trying to explore your opinion, the answers you seek are googleable. Try substituting “fine-tuned universe” for “perfect working order.”
Claiming that because it exists supports a specific deity isn’t a persuasive argument.
All energy is a state of matter.
E=MC2
likewise...
M=E/C2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.